United States Ninth Circuit

In a forfeiture action for $40,955 that were the proceeds of marijuana sales, district court order is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) two plaintiffs had a legitimate expectation of privacy in their home, thus they had standing to challenge the search warrant that led to the seizure of the money; 2) a third claimant did not have standing to challenge the search warrant; 3) the district court did not err in admitting statements the claimants' son made to the police during and after the search of the house; and 4) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants' motion to dismiss on grounds of spoliation.

Appellate Information

• Argued 11/20/2008
• Decided 01/27/2009
• Published 01/27/2009

Judges

• TRAGER, District Judge:, Before: SUSAN P. GRABER and RICHARD R. CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and DAVID G. TRAGER, District Judge.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Michael J. McCabe and Richard M. Barnett, San Diego, CA, for the claimants-appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Bruce C. Smith, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Appellate Section, Criminal Division, San Diego, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.